Agenda item - BH2016/00403 - 251-253 Preston Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of non-original two storey link building.  Erection of new 3no storey link building and conversion, extensionand refurbishment works to existing buildings to facilitate creation of 22no apartments (C3).  Erection of 6no single dwelling houses (C3) to rear of site to provide a total of 28no residential units incorporating provision of new car parking, cycle parking and refuse stores, landscaping, planting and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of non-original two storey link building.  Erection of new 3no storey link building and conversion, extension and refurbishment works to existing buildings to facilitate creation of 22no apartments (C3).  Erection of 6no single dwelling houses (C3) to rear of site to provide a total of 28no residential units incorporating provision of new car parking, cycle parking and refuse stores, landscaping, planting and other associated works.

Officer Introduction

1)               The Principle Planning Officer (Adrian Smith) introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the late list. Planning permission had previously been refused due to the size of the extension proposed and the positioning of the buildings to the rear within the conservation area; this scheme sought to address these reasons for refusal. The application sought permission to convert the two Victorian villas to form 22 one, two and three bedroom flats, including the demolition of the existing link building and the erection of a new three storey link building and six houses to the rear of the site. The buildings were currently vacant having previously been in use by the Children’s Services team and the site fell within the Preston Park Conservation Area.

2)               Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) were in effect for 27 of the 95 trees on the site, and four of the 27 with orders were to be felled. The application included a detailed landscaping plan with ecological mitigation and there would be parking for 30 vehicles. In relation to affordable housing this would make up 40% of the units on site, with eight units being affordable rent and three intermediate housing. The principle issues related to the heritage aspects and the scale of the link building; the revised massing and design represented a significant improvement from the previous proposals. Whilst it was still considered there would be some harm caused to the conservation area this was considered less than substantial and outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The application was minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report, subject to a s106 agreement. 

Questions for Officers

3)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Officer clarified that there would be a mix of silver birch, fruit and lime trees planted in the garden. It was also clarified that the surviving part of the historic wall would be retained; the proposal to alter it for public access had not formed part of the scheme as it was not considered appropriate..

4)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald, it was explained that there were 30 car parking spaces in total and four of these were disabled access. One disabled bay was situated directly opposite the exit of the building and the other bays were to the North and South side of the car park.

5)               It was clarified to Mr Gowans, CAG representative, that there were footpaths through the communal gardens and that no vehicles would be permitted to use these.

6)               In response to Councillor Littman, the Officer explained that a number of trees had been protected by the TPO which had been introduced for many trees along Preston Road since 1978.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that the scheme was much improved since the previous application; however, she was disappointed that the roof would not be grey slate and match the neighbouring properties. Councillor C. Theobald stated that overall she was happy with the application.

8)               Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he disagreed with Councillor C. Theobald and explained that he felt the contrast between the neighbouring properties was not appropriate and it was out of style for the building; however, he added that he would be supporting the application as the rest of the scheme was much improved.

9)               Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had voted to grant the previous application at the site, he would be supporting the Officer recommendation. He appreciated the applicant had responded to the previous reasons for refusal and he thought the landscaping would be a benefit.

10)            Councillor Miller believed the application had been significantly improved and would enhance the historic elements. He stated that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor Littman stated that he believed it was a considerable improvement from the previous application and an improvement on what was currently in the area. He added that he understood Councillor Inkin-Leissner’s argument in relation to the contrast but that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

12)            Councillor Gilbey explained that she was pleased the flint wall was being saved and hoped it would be protected in the future. The Officer clarified that it would.

13)            The Chair stated that she was pleased the applicant had worked with the Officers to improve the application; she welcomed the affordable housing and that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

14)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried unanimously.

6.1         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the conditions and informatives set out in section 11.